A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.
You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.
I do not usually follow Reputation. But as I was preparing to make this thread, I noticed this:
Post your lauda defense here scammer supporter not on my nutildah thread.
refuting the false accusations against Lauda. Discussion of Lauda was certainly on-topic, for OP had slung even more mud against Lauda than against nutildah.
Disclosures about my relation (or lack theref) to persons or entities named in OP; I will make these disclosures upfront, because these flamewars typically devolve into such questions:
I think that as to the allegations in OP, I am as close to being independent and unbiased as anybody is. (Nobody who posts on these threads is completely unbiased.)
Having so said:
Economic warfareEconomic warfare by attacking one’s advertisers is practically an institution in many Western countries, nowadays. As a method of suppressing the speech or actions of persons deemed “undesirable”, it started in the Nineteenth Century and grew to be quite systematized in the Twentieth Century.
It is why all the mainstream news media have biased news coverage, and allow only a narrow range of opinions: Anybody who does otherwise, goes bankrupt when their advertisers are driven away by boycotts or threats thereof.
It is why unpopular opinions do not get heard, and it is in many cases a major reason why dissidents struggle financially.
On this forum, I have noticed systematic attacks against a completely unrelated advertiser and campaign manager: ChipMixer and DarkStar_. It is in protest against this attack that I wear an
unsolicited, unpaid ChipMixer ad in my signature. In that case, I believe that ChipMixer itself is the target; I have been intending to write a more extensive post about this.
OP here is an obvious alt account with an axe to grind. On the basis of twisted, dishonest mischaracterizations of past events, as discussed below,
he is essentially attempting to wage financial warfare for the purpose of manipulating the trust system. This is one of the worst instances of (attempted) trust system abuse that I have yet seen.
And it is perpetrated via
manipulative character assassination using lies and smear-tactics, as seen below.
In re nutildahNutildah the member who has defined himself by both his words and actions to be a willing scam facilitator for pay, he has also started using red tags to deter people from warning others how untrustworthy and dangerous he is.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190369.0The linked topic is a 2019 accusation that nutildah put his forum account up for sale in
2016, and then withdrew it from the market. No account sale ever actually occurred.
Although that episode may make me question nutildah’s judgment, it occurred almost four years ago; and to my knowledge, no similar behaviour has ever been repeated.
Edited topic title: Not for sale - decided to keep it a long time ago, you fucks.But it would be worth even less once someone tags the account as being sold.
You should of sold using a dummy account first to avoid this from happening.
They don't call him
nutildah for nuttin'
Maybe he didn't do any buying or selling or trading with this account so it doesn't matter so much.
You're right, I didn't, and for everybody's future reference the account is no longer for sale. I've decided to keep it.
Although I myself am
strongly opposed to account sales of almost any kind,
it is absurd to spin this into evidence of nutildah being a “willing scam facilitator for pay” (!). What scam was facilitated? None. What was paid? Nothing.OP is
lying.
In re LaudaFirst linked thread: Thanks, I had not seen that one. LOL. Quoted above, for the later specific accusation that I am Lauda’s alt, not only Lauda’s “alt or pal” as stated in OP of that thread.
What does this gobshite alt or pal of lauda the member nullius do as soon as he wakes up from a very long sleep??
OP then proceeds to show that, in effect, Lauda was involved in an altcoin in
2014, when she was relatively new to crypto; and she changed her opinion about that coin at some undetermined point between 2014 and 2017. (I am guessing by about 2015, though I have not reviewed this matter specifically.) In effect, it is an accusation that she is not allowed to change her mind in the course of the proceeding three years from 2014–17... and this is somehow relevant in 2020.
That makes Lauda a “proven scammer”?
The nonsense directed at me is even more ridiculous: OP paints me as a hypocrite because in 2020, I am friends with someone who said some things disagreeable to me in 2014, and later changed her mind and said things that I absolutely agree with. Say what? That is so wrong that it’s “
not even wrong”. It does not even make sense.
(For the record, the
only altcoins that I myself have
ever possessed in any amount are Zcash, where I got my start (
LOL, Lauda), and Monero. Better idea: Improve Bitcoin privacy, and transact on the Lightning Network.)
Now we see nullius the double standards hypocrite bitch of lauda. Who is supporting lauda and running around looking like a lauda is trying to punish another member for a similar but less serious crime?? This person is not lying like Lauda?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5231181.0First of all, I disagree that that’s “less serious”. Fork attacks on Bitcoin are the most serious altcoin scam of all; and jbreher is a highly experienced user who continues repeating objectively false misinformation that has been debunked to him numerous times over the years. Second of all, I never accused jbreher of a
crime: I mean that in the sense that I would not lock him in prison for his forum posts, if I had the power to do so. I do think that many of his posts are dishonest and damaging, and people should be
warned about that.
If jbreher turns around and starts repudiating what he said before, honestly and with full understanding—if he becomes one of the most active opponents of the same lies and FUD that he has been spreading—then I will buy him a (virtual) beer! You may quote me on that.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to Lauda.
Second linked thread: To describe Lauda as an “extortionist” based on a single instance of an ill-advised act
not done for financial gain is ridiculous. As is well-known to anyone who has actually trawled through those old threads, Lauda got overeager pursuing an alleged scammer, and set up an admittedly stupid “sting operation” that got way out of control. The consequences to Lauda were severe, any negative impact to her “victim” was adequately remediated, and Lauda has never repeated such behaviour. “Extortion
ist”!?
This sums it up as for the target of the non-financially-motivated “extortion”, zeroaxl:
Additional Notes: Upon receipt of the extortion message from Lauda, zeroaxl opened a scam accusation thread against Lauda, and about 16 hours later, all three (the threads opened by zeroaxl, TMAN, and minifrij) threads were locked, edited so that there was no content in each of their respective OPs, and moved to archival within 20 minutes of eachother.
Looks like they all agreed to sort the issue privately between themselves, since all the threads were locked and edited with 'TBC'. Zeroxal is still active on the forum and he could unlock his own accusation thread if he wished to, so I don't see why would you create this one.
This sums up the consequences to Lauda, which Lauda accepted without whining about it:
Are you now claiming that Laura is trustworthy and their account should be red trust free?
What lauda did was wrong, and was a display of poor judgement. With that being said, what happened, happened a long time ago, I have good reason to believe lauda is remorseful for what he did, and to my knowledge he has not made a similar mistake since. I have left the extortion thread unlocked, and it will remain that way provided no trolls bump it to stir up drama.
In addition to being remorseful, Lauda was also
punished with the
severe consequences of being fired from a prestigious paid job that was probably quite important to her:
You got what you wanted. Lauda is no longer a staff member. You can lock this thread now.
Ouch.To call Lauda “a proven scammer and extortionist” is, again, a
lie.
In re Hhampuz and FortuneJackAll that is alleged is that... nutildah and Lauda receive financial compensation for advertising FortuneJack.
On that basis, an attempt is made to damage the reputations of both parties.
The whole thing is a smear job based on false and defamatory statements directed at some parties, with the impact bounced back toward other parties in an attempt to manipulate and coerce all of four targets.
Let us work together to rid bitcointalk of scammers and projects or companies that pay scammers to enable scamming or reduce the value of our trust system.
~lauda
~nutildah
~Hhampuz
Go to your trust settings delete default trust and exclude scammers and those assisting scammers
The evidence is indisputable hence why they should not be getting paid to facilitate scamming on bitcointalk by sponsors.
“Indisputable?” The “evidence” is that years ago, nutildah began to do something wrong, and then hastily backed off before actually doing it—and that years ago, Lauda did something wrong, admitted it, took responsibility, settled things privately with the wronged party, suffered severe consequences without complaint, and has never repeated that behaviour in any way.
Both wrongs were inchoate. Neither wrong involved scamming or facilitating scams—that is a defamatory mischaracterization of the facts.
OP has the obvious motive of shutting up two quite different individuals with whose trust decisions he disagrees. This thread is a smear job, calculated to destroy reputations via defamation and to financially harm people with false accusations.I am open to debate on this matter.
All off topic irrelevant posts will be removed.
Nobody has dared try to refute the evidence as yet.
I have refuted all your so-called “evidence”, as to which you merely dropped links without explanation. I also pointed out your obvious motives. Dare to debate?
Others will be moderated at my discretion. Will be deleted without regard to content: Posts which quote the whole OP, or which use rapid-motion, brightly-coloured animated GIFs that I deem too visually distracting, or which use too many animated GIFs.
